Dear Producer,

You wrote: "The individuals that hunted and gathered would get the pick of the produce as they were to ones that produced it."

Hunter-gatherer societies vary. In some those who hunt do get the pick of the produce. In others they must allow others first pick. In others all members of the tribe share equally. If a hunter was to try to take first pick in a tribe that doesn't operate that way he would lose status. Losing status has bad consequences in not finding a mate for your kids, in not getting the mate you want, in being kicked out of the men's hut (if that tribe has such a thing etc. Hunter-gatherer societies vary. Some like the Kwakiutl are extremely acquisitive. Some like the Onondagas are communist with very little personal property. Marx made the mistake of assuming that all early tribal people were communist because he was influenced by Morgan who studied the Onondagas.

Tribal attitudes in the same tribe can vary as circumstances change. Colin Turnbull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Turnbull) studied the Ik of Uganda. They were a very sharing group when they lived in a lush area. After they were forced off their land they become very acquisitive and individualistic.

Most tribal people have developed some concept of money. They will take an item and ascribe value to it as our society does to the bits of paper and metal we call money. One material that serves the purpose of money for many tribal people is the shell. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_money) Tribal societies may differ more from one another than the US differed from the USSR.

One must be cautious in making generalisations about tribal societies. It is safest to limit one's generalisations in that area to that which can be substantiated by observation

david f clearly you are more knowledgeable than I as to the diverse nature of hunter gatherer societies and I appreciate your post. The context I was using simplified hunter gatherer example was to illustrate metaphorically the restrictive nature of their way of life. In all cases to survive there is direct a requirement to produce the means to survive. Once hunter gatherers move to a monetary system they by nature cease in part being an exclusive hunter gather society and are on the slippery slope of becoming one of the many variations that exists on this planet today.

Do you have an opinion on “the solution”?

Dear Producer,

Of course I don't have a "solution". One of the problems with having a "solution" is that the next step is to try to enforce it on everyone else. This is the basic problem with "solutions" as many of those who lived in the Marxist and Fascist societies have found out. Trying to enforce "solutions" leads to tyranny.

That doesn't mean we cannot try to remedy social ills - merely that we don't assume that there is a grand solution for all of them.

I favour what Popper called 'piecemeal social engineering'. If one is aware of something wrong try to fix it. If your fix works try to go on from there. If it doesn't work try something else.

As far as producing only what we need I don't think it is a good idea. A hunter-gatherer may produce all a hunter-gatherer needs to survive in 17 hours a week. Anthropological studies of hunter-gatherers have shown 17 hours are usually all it takes. However, like all of us a hunter-gatherer wants more than just to survive. My son is an anthropologist who has studied the Xikrin and the Canela, two Brazilian tribal peoples. What they do when they have taken care of their survival gives their lives meaning. I am sitting at a computer which I can do without listening to mbs which I could do without writing to Producer who I do not need to know. However, I feel my life would be poorer if computers, classical music, radio and Producer did not exist. Once we have managed to survive it is good to do more than that.

We shoud be mindful that our modern way of life encourages us to "specialise" - so that most of us can only carry our a limited set of tasks compared to our forebears a few hundred years ago. I have a little piece somewhere, which I'll look up, where it goes into all the things that country peasants used "produce" for themselves in the evenings (instead of sitting passively and watching TV) - it's interesting.

The other thing is that more primitive societies imbibe things that us modern's wouldn't even notice. I remember reading of reindeer herders on the tundra who used to get up in the morning and sit quietly surveying the familiar landscape for any changes during the night - reading the news, so to speak.

It's very hard for us to judge the things which would fascinate and enthrall people who live differently to us.

David f – I struggle with some the assumptions you draw with regard to limiting the share of what is, more equitably and within the limits of what there is. Introducing a degree of equity and proportionality does not demand that anything be done or not done by anyone. However if less is done, there won’t be as much and all should share this loss and vice versa. The concept does recognize that there is a massive imbalance between effort and reward. It does recognize that makers deserve more than takers.

There was no caveat of 17 hours on producing what we need. Globally we produce a lot of useless stuff that consumes valuable time and precious resources. I feel my life would be the richer if I had more time to enjoy musical performance, writing, family and verbal jousting. It is all very well for us to survive but I wish that and more for my grandchildren. I suppose that’s the more I would like to do.

What can I do; I’m just a simple primary producer.

Hi Producer, you're expressing a kind of utopian agrarian communalism such as underlay the hippy movement and continues to inform some multiple-occupancy communities such as may be found around Nimbin. Have you read Thoreau? Perhaps you should.

The problem is that such communities are not and cannot be self-sufficient and that means they need to have some means of exchanging what they make or can do for others into things they need. They also need a way to store perishable goods or to convert them to some non-perishable form that preserves their value for later exchange with others.

Money may not be the perfect way to do that, but I can't think of a better one, can you?

The problem that you perceive is not one that arises from excess capacity, since hierarchies evolve in every social structure. They are an instinctive part of being human, a non-delete option.

What you're seeking is a way to stop them from intruding, which I think is only achievable with a properly comprehensive general model of the way people interact. If it were to prove to be also simple, so much the better.